Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Wanted: Columnists to say nice things about Donald Trump. Must be able to make cogent arguments in favor of the president-elect’s policies, appointees and statements. Experience preferred but not required.

It’s not an actual want ad, but it might as well be one. As they discovered during the long campaign season, the nation’s newspapers and major digital news sites — the dreaded mainstream media — are facing a shortage of people able, or more likely willing, to write opinion columns supportive of the president-elect.

Major newspapers, from The Washington Post to the New York Times, have struggled to find and publish pro-Trump columns for months. So have regional ones, such as the Des Moines Register and the Arizona Republic, which has a long history of supporting Republican candidates.

The newspapers have plenty of conservative writers, but that’s where the problem begins. Trump, who has defied traditional left-right categories, has offered something for both liberals and conservatives to dislike. The latter never believed that Trump was a true conservative; the former were revolted by his rhetoric from the start.

Hence, he has had few friends on the nation’s op-ed pages.

A case in point: The New York Times’ regular center-right columnists, Ross Douthat and David Brooks, never got behind Trump. And despite recruiting prominent conservative figures such as Glenn Beck and Erick Erickson to write guest columns, the result was largely the same. Erickson called Trump “indefensible.” The best Beck could do was to say, “Mr. Trump is not Hitler.”

It was much the same with The Post’s regular lineup of conservative voices — George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson; none offered much support for Trump. Regular Post contributors such as Marc A. Thiessen and Ed Rogers tended to knock Hillary Clinton more than they praised Trump.

“We struggled to find voices that could advocate for Donald Trump’s ideas,” said James Bennet, the Times’ editorial-page editor. “It was really unusual. It didn’t help that the conservative intelligentsia lined up against him.” But Bennet says Trump’s campaign contributed to the imbalance: “He didn’t have the people around him who were prepared to put together his arguments” for publication.

Lynn Hicks, the Des Moines Register’s opinion editor, found a parallel at his newspaper, the lar­gest in the swing state that wound up going for Trump. “Given that almost all of our Republican leadership in Iowa supported Trump, I kept waiting for [supportive op-ed] pieces to arrive,” Hicks said. “I’m still waiting.”

The Arizona Republic’s syndicated and staff opinion writers were all “stridently anti-Trump,” said Phil Boas, director of the paper’s editorial department. “In a normal presidential election, we would have seen a strong mix of pro-con views for Republican and Democrat candidates,” he said, “but the Republican civil war turned a lot of traditional voices on the right into opponents of the GOP nominee. . . . A number of pro-Trump readers accused us of betraying our state and its conservative ideals.”

Dear Mr. Farhi,

I am a Trump-supporting columnist. I correctly predicted both his nomination and his eventual victory. I have a daily blog that gets traffic of nearly 4 million monthly pageviews. I have been been a regular columnist for the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, and have been nationally syndicated twice, by Chronicle Features and by Universal Press Syndicate. I have published over 500 weekly columns, and according to Amazon, I am one of the bestselling authors of political philosophy alive.

I shall eagerly await what can only be the inevitable offer of a regular column in the Washington Post.

With regards,
Vox Day

I also sent an email to the relevant editor. I figure this will happen right around the time Mike Cernovich launches his show on NBC, Milo is elected Queen of England, and George R. R. Martin finishes A Song of Ice and Fire.

It was much the same with The Post’s regular lineup of conservative voices — George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin and Michael Gerson; none offered much support for Trump. Regular Post contributors such as Marc A. Thiessen and Ed Rogers tended to knock Hillary Clinton more than they praised Trump.

None of those names are conservative; at best they're neoconservative.

I wish I could find it again, and of course the work can be duplicated, but someone counted one day the number of anti-Trump items in a paper issue of the Post and there were well more than a dozen, plus he mentioned a few more published that day that were only on-line.

He was worried constant drumbeat would hurt Trump ... well, perhaps, and perhaps it's encouraged the usual suspects to unmask, for example, Mitch McConnell signed on to "the Russians did it!" delegitimization campaign. The next two years will most certainly be interesting....

Didn't offer him support? The reaction to Trump was overwhelmingly negative among (((conservative))) columnists, to the point where "true" conservatives had to hate Trump in order to get column space.

What's interesting is that this was more or less the reaction to the Stephen Harper phenomenon in Canada. Andrew Coyne was routinely trotted out as a conservative hostile to the Conservative Party, and Tony Abbott in Australia had similar problems. Nonetheless they managed some amount of enduring popularity, even without a real media alternative.

When an alternative does exist, can conservative media really afford to stay hostile to Trump? I don't think so, and it shows how he has a longer game than just about anyone else in the conservative anglosphere.

So... a dying medium that's fully converged but allows a few token 'conservatives' who can't find anything redeeming about Trump. Sounds like a wonderful place for an alt-right to work. I wonder if they have a ball pit?

Right now I think the Demos and the GOP hope to ride out 4 - 8 years of Trump, minimizing his impact as much as possible, and then go back to business as usual.

That's not going to happen. Trump may be fairly unique. Rich and famous enough to self-fund a Presidential campaign with plenty of name recognition. Smart strategic and tactical thinker. Charismatic. But, he has revealed something about the electorate that I once heard expressed about FNC. It showed that there was a niche market for conservative news, one-half of the country.

Trump's populism isn't "conservative" and the people who support him don't give a damn about that. Globalism and PC are literally destroying a vast swath of people. There are going to be people who, seeing what Trump has done, will follow in his foot steps.

Expect attempts to censor speech to increase with elements of the GOPe getting on-board.

You never know. Some editor might want to signal "edginess" to peers. "Edginess" is a virtue, which led to those horrible "what's new on the Internet" columns in the 90s.

Somewhere between the horoscope and whoever's doing "Dear Abbie" these days they can find a few inches. Although they'd much rather you be on the "Trump is literally Hitler" bandwagon, but present that as a positive.

Well to be fair to WaPo, they're probably better off losing a third of their readership by repeating the same pablum, than they are in their readership all dying of aneurysms when they see Vox Day in their morning safe space.

If it happens though, I predict 24 hours, tops, before we get an article about how much John Scalzi doesn't care, and being interviewed by the Guardian is way better anyway than being hired to play Hitler's advocate.

"...the nation’s newspapers and major digital news sites — the dreaded mainstream media — are facing a shortage of people able, or more likely willing, to write opinion columns supportive of the president-elect."

Just wait a year. Maybe six months.

If he's actually as effective an executive as he appears to be, this won't be a problem for long.

Also, I find it precious that the print media actually think they matter.

From what I've heard, Erickson and some of the other NeverTrump conservative pundits have found it in their hearts to forgive Trump for being so dastardly, as long as he finally sees the wisdom of letting them set the limits of his policies and tone-police his administration. They'd fit right in as "pro-Trump" voices for the Old Media.

The Washington Post’s digital audience has broken all previous monthly records with 99.6 million visitors in October 2016, according to comScore. This growth represents a 49% increase year-over-year. Total page views are up 55%, also setting a new record. Mobile traffic also saw a significant increase, up 59% year-over-year.

How do we cause this to happen? Possibly tout Mr. Beale's Alt-Right.West bona fides and perhaps they take the bait with evil intentions. That would be such a good setup. Someone could make alotta hay in a position such as that.

"Readership." How cute. You think they make their money off of readers?

People have been producing a lot of very good information lately. I just watched something that may not be extremely useful to many folks here, but it's relevant to your comment. If you know someone on the verge of waking up they could probably benefit from watching this recent video by David Seaman on YouTube.

At best, they are looking for a columnist who is only marginally Trump supportive and who, at their whim, turn on Trump in time. That's actually what they're looking for. They just don't want a name that anyone really recognizes. Otherwise, they would just approach people they were interested in through back channels including Vox. They want a Trump supporter lite that they can control. Sorry Vox...but obviously you know that.

I am a very experienced pro Trump shitposter across many social media sites. My memes are the dankest and my Pepes are the rarest. You should really hire me as I perceive no other azure colored ungulates on your problematically undiverse staff, you racist.

Interesting that you would say "two". I am at this very moment literally slavering at the thought of the 2018 primaries.

HAVOC!

We are of one mind there, although I note there are only 8 Republican Senators we can primary in that year.

I'm making the assumption that we won't quite see a repeat of Reagan, Tip O'Neil and a generally supportive of the former newly Republican Senate, as I recall (certainly not one that started attacking his legitimacy before his inauguration). I suspect that loss really shocked a lot of the usual suspects, both houses of the Congress had been held by the Democrats for the previous three decades. The dual losses in 1994 certainly shook up a lot of people....

Not directly related but posting because it is so perfect. The hack on the DNC. How did it happen?

"The FBI got a single special agent to make a phone call [to tell the DNC they were hacked]. The agent, Adrian Hawkins, rang the DNC and was put through to the IT helpdesk. He told the tech-support contractor on duty, Yared Tamene, that a group called “the Dukes” had hacked the DNC’s computer networks.

According to the paper, Tamene thought Hawkins’s message might have been a prank call. He googled “Dukes” but found nothing. He then failed to alert senior staff after his cursory search of the DNC’s computer system logs revealed no obvious sign of an intrusion.

Hawkins rang back repeatedly over the next few weeks. Tamene, however, did not respond. “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” he wrote in a memo seen by the New York Times."

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies Genesis 22:17

Heavenly Father, let this come to fruition. Let Vox lift the standard of the alt-right in the citadel of the ctrl-left. Expand his scope of reach through the pages of the Washington Post. I ask this in Jesus' Name and for his sake. Amen.

> of course, if Tamene were competent in the first place, the DNC computers probably wouldn't have been susceptible for hacking.

It was a Windows server attached to the Internet. The most competent admins can only delay the inevitable if it's under determined attack. Linux is better, but even it can be hacked if you have folks as incompetent as the DNC appears to have been as your users.

This is the kind of thing that The Washington Posts needs. But they won't do it. The whole point of lining up Bezos to take over from the Graham family was to avoid having to shake things up. He's the deep pockets Sugar Daddy that keeps their party going, shields them from reality and all that it requires.

btw, it doesn't appear to me that the DNC server was hacked. Podesta was spear-fished. He forked over his password. He got an email that was made to look like an official request from Google, asking him to click a link and change his password. He fell for it.

There's very little you can do to protect a user who forks over his password.

@84 - Podesta was spear-fished. He forked over his password. He got an email that was made to look like an official request from Google, asking him to click a link and change his password. He fell for it.

Although the word was that when he got the spear-plishing email, he was properly suspicious, and asked the Clinton campaign IT super-geniuses if it was legitimate. They assured it was legit and that he needed to change his password pronto. Who knew that getting the best IT people to work for a criminal outfit that could result in them going to Federal prison would be hard?

@BluePonyNo, I used King deliberately. I don't traffic in that gender fluidity nonsense.

It's not a gender fluidity thing you dummkopf, a 'queen' is another name for a flamboyant gay man, and has been that way for quite a while now.

So when Vox says Milo getting elected Queen of England, it's a multi-faceted joke, both by electing royalty, being a flamboyant gay man called a literal "queen", as well as a reference to the sarcastic phrase "Yeah, and I'm the King of England!"

I love it when you make them cross their eyes and piss their pants in a hurry to not have heard or read what you said or wrote. I can see the fear in his eyes. He doesn't want to tell his bosses, but may have to because you blogged it and it will get to them. But he isn't sure if they will fire him for bringing this up with them, or for not bringing this up with him. He even, worse, fears... some IDIOT... above his paygrade... may just *gulp* make you and offer he can't refuse.

I don't know. I'm just laughing. I'll be laughing about this for the rest of the week. Sometimes a somber deep bubbling chuckle, sometimes a *gack* hack of mild, and once in a while some of the laughter that no man should utter but it's impossible to resist from time to time. Thanks for that. I'll call that my Christmas present.

according to the reporting ( yes, yes, Fake News, i know ) the server was hacked BEFORE Podesta was phished.

I thought they were independent events, the compromise of Podesta's GMail account, and the DNC server hacking. Although maybe not so much if they happened in that order, if the hackers hadn't had Podesta's email address prior to cracking the DNC server.

And wow, speaking of fake news, the Wikipedia introduction to the DNC server hack is a hoot.

I thought they were independent events, the compromise of Podesta's GMail account, and the DNC server hacking.

Yes. Podesta's email password was phished, which is why Wikileaks has only Podesta's emails, not all the others on Hillary's private server. Separately, the DNC servers containing opposition research on Trump were hacked. Everyone's screaming "Russian government hackers," but I recall the FBI saying they'd been hacked by at least five foreign agencies. Not sure whether there were five separate intrusions, or the first one sold the access to four others.

A lot of people are confusing the two, because the Clintons/Podestas want them confused to throw shade on the Wikileaks emails. Stage 3 is still out there, by the way.

Should this come to pass, I predict that that the first of many snowflake trigger events will likely register on seismic recording equipment on the opposite side of the planet from nothing more than VD saying "Hello!".

After petitions surpass more than 100K at the White House, President Trump will abolish the petition practice altogether.

Once things settle down, VD's column will be immensely popular and TOR will offer ludicrous amounts of "up front" payments for the first book whereupon VD will graciously pass on the offer even after Scaldlipzi mows his lawn in Italy.

(Don't mind me I'm just positively projecting! It could happen! Well, it could! Hhaughmmmmmm .... Hhaughmmmmmm ... just Zen meditation stuff ... one with the universe and all ... Hhaughmmmmmm ...)

"I figure this will happen right around the time Mike Cernovich launches his show on NBC, Milo is elected Queen of England, and George R. R. Martin finishes A Song of Ice and Fire"

Even better would be a new remake of "Fire and Ice".

Plot synopsis from Wiki "From their stronghold in Icepeak, the evil Queen Juliana and her son, the evil white demon Nekron, sends his sub-humans to kidnap Jarol’s barefoot daughter, Princess Teegra; Queen Juliana feels that Nekron should take a bride to produce an heir.

But Teegra makes an escape and comes upon Larn, a young warrior and the only survivor of a village razed by the Sub-humans, who offers to escort her back to Firekeep. As Teegra is recaptured, Larn teams with the mysterious Darkwolf to save Teegra and then travel to Icepeak to stop Juliana. Darkwolf faces Nekron and kills him as Icepeak succumbs to lava released by King Jarol and is destroyed.

The film finishes with Larn getz revenge against the sub-humans but then Teegra stops him saying that "it's over" and embraces him. Darkwolf is seen atop a cliff; he watches the pair, smiles and then disappears. Teegra and Larn kiss as the credits roll"

I explained,right there @86 several posts before you made this one, that I understood that gay = queen because there's no one left in Western civilization that doesn't. My resisting gender fluidity comment was just silly sarcasm because, you know, this is sort of an alt-right place. And King Milo really does just sound funnier to me because it runs counter to the stereotype.

VD said several days ago about not using emoticons or sarcasm tags, but I guess some folks do need them. ;-)

"Major newspapers, from The Washington Post to the New York Times, have struggled to find and publish pro-Trump columns for months."

Yeah, right. They tried to find Scott Adams, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, etc. but these writers were nowhere to be found. And all those great Breitbart columnists (latest favorite, Virgil Goode)? Breitbart just must be better at finding them. Even Milo was hiding (he's so shy). They tried. They really tried.

Only if they keep the Frank Frazetta based character designs, especially for the women. Holy cow... yeah, that's one film I do recall from my formative years.

But you know exactly how a remake would go. The evil ice (white) male and his Army of the Ice Shaft are dominating *all* the privilege across the land. The evil has begun spurting across the river Estrus into the Matriarchy Of Transgend, so the Queen (not King) calls up the mystical, chunky, sassy, blue haired warrior-maidens of the Holy Intersection.

Along the way the maidens meet Wolfgaze, who ogles them bathing in a stream. They subdue him, and he becomes their leather bound submissive slave. They eventuality sacrifice him as bait for the evil ice villain.

Ice villain never gets a backstory or even a name because that would risk humanizing him. Voiced by Tom Kenny.

So have regional ones, such as the Des Moines Register and the Arizona Republic, which has a long history of supporting Republican candidates.

This is a nice bit of obfuscation here, since many readers won't know that the Register leans hard left. If you know the Register, it's an awkward sentence; but if you don't, you're liable to assume they mentioned those two together because they're similar.

They lie a lot, of course; but the idea that major news organs couldn't find pro-Trump writers is a doozy.

The wife told me a funny, while ago. She saw it on FB. Apparently, a bunch of anti Trump folk wanted to swarm his inauguration, wearing orange wigs and singing 'Springtime for Hitler.'I laughed a lot at it and told her Trump would probably love it. He could, correctly, applaud them and thank them for all the free advertising and getting his followers even more jazzed. If thats possible.

Andrew Coyne was routinely trotted out as a conservative hostile to the Conservative Party, and Tony Abbott in Australia had similar problems

Tony Abbott was hardly conservative overall but he was a Christian, a monarchist and had spent a lot of his life volunteering to help others instead of protesting pointlessly; all three things the left cannot stand so the leftist media demonised Abbott into being a caricature of Hitler. Abbott's predecessor, who had failed to win an election, and been unceremoniously dumped, used poor opinion polls to say that Abbott was hurting their chances of winning an unimportant by-election in WA, and that he should be replaced with someone who appeals more to the left (a jewish banker) even though the left is never going to vote for the conservative party anyway.

It was a textbook case of conservatives betraying their own best interests to play nice guy to the left. They won the by-election they were never really going to lose but then lost their 19 seat majority in the general election. The only thing keeping the major conservative party alive is the lack of any other option to vote for in the lower house.

Regardless of whether I agree with him 100% on all issues (or even 1%, it's irrelevant) if this happened I would be in trouble because I wouldn't be able to stop gleefully cackling every time I thought about it, no matter where I was. I'm okay with that, actually, lol. Shoot, I'm snickering delightedly just *imagining* the possibility! :-D

"They lie a lot, of course; but the idea that major news organs couldn't find pro-Trump writers is a doozy."

Well, in their own minds they can't, because they've already ruled them all out of bounds. The fact that they ruled them out of bounds specifically so they can't find them gets lost in the cognitive dissonance.

Well yes, that's the point: they're trying to square a circle. They can't keep up the kayfabe of just publishing the right-hand side of the crony globalists when there's a populist nationalist in office, and they can't admit their intellectually dishonest scam either.

Although the word was that when he got the spear-plishing email, he was properly suspicious, and asked the Clinton campaign IT super-geniuses if it was legitimate. They assured it was legit and that he needed to change his password pronto. Who knew that getting the best IT people to work for a criminal outfit that could result in them going to Federal prison would be hard?

The current claim, from the IT guy, is that he meantto say that the email was illegitimate and that his stating it was legitimate in his reply to Podesta was a typo.

Odds are the whole story about Podesta consulting the IT guy is made up. It's more likely he fell for the phishing attempt, and then when his emails came out, they paid (or blackmailed) the IT guy to fall on his sword for them. He's just some guy. It's no big deal for him to have made a mistake, especially if it can be shrugged off as a typo, compared to complete incompetence by a guy who was near the right hand of the president-to-be.

I agree. Though now the story seems to be that he meant to type "not a legitimate" and left out the not. That is the typo. Because somebody noticed that if he really meant to type illegitimate, then there should have been an "an", not an "a."

Also, apparently the IT guy did send the correct link to change a google password, but the claim is that some assistant is the one who clicked on the phishing link.